What is released and what is not,

[tycho1572]

I also know you can appreciate the love and respect I have for you, Coyote.

 

[Coyote]

I also know you appreciate the love and respect I have for you, Coyote.

 

[tycho1572]

I also know you appreciate the love and respect I have for you, Coyote.

 

[usmbguest5318]

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

They voted against releasing the minority memo.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Let's be clear: It simply isn't possible for a memo discussing "Party B" and written by "Party A," who has no involvement in "Party B's" actions and causal motives, cannot possibly show probatively that "Party B" is or was indeed motivated as "Party A" claims. Anyone who fully understands the nature and extent of what it takes to prove intent knows that to be so. Now, as goes the large share of regular/active USMB members, it seems clear to me that very, very, very few (one, maybe two from what I have observed) understand anything about the role of mens rea, let alone what it takes to cogently show existentiality for any given intent. (Intent can be shown soundly only with a direct attestation of intent, and the odds of ever getting that from a dissembler, malefactor or disingenuous person is "slim to none," and we both know "slim's" ship left port with a gaping hole in the hull.)

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

And the prospect of their doing so was not even close to new by the time the party-line vote happened. One'd have thought that Trump's appointed USIC heads would have, by the time the vote happened, had cleared the memo for immediate release, or that Trump would have pre-written either a blanket declassification order of whatever is in the memo or pre-written a declassification order specifying precisely what information in the memo is/isn't declassified. Trump, of course, didn't do that because he just wants to prolong the acrimony.

Prolonging the acrimony is precisely what's happening and Trump's doing no thing to see it brought to an end.

• Because the memo contains classified information, the people who've read it cannot state what exactly it says, until it's declassified or redacted.
• Because the memo contains classified information, the FBI cannot state what content in it is untrue, until it's declassified or redacted.

Trump has unilateral authority/power to declassify the whole damn thing, thus putting the whole picture on the table for the American people to see, and yet he's not done so. Moreover, just now (it hasn't been five minutes) on AC360, I heard that the memo the WH received isn't even the same memo the House voted to release.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

• Moreover, the House Intel. Cmte. has, to date, refused to share the memo with their Senate counterparts.
• The FBI released a statement about the memo. It essentially says the memo is BS.

Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Off Topic:

FWIW, though I presume you already know so, the "formal" terms for that, depending on how an author/speaker composes or utters their remarks, are:

• Tu quoque fallacious reasoning
• Relative privation

 

[usmbguest5318]

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

They voted against releasing the minority memo.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Let's be clear: It simply isn't possible for a memo discussing "Party B" and written by "Party A," who has no involvement in "Party B's" actions and causal motives, cannot possibly show probatively that "Party B" is or was indeed motivated as "Party A" claims. Anyone who fully understands the nature and extent of what it takes to prove intent knows that to be so. Now, as goes the large share of regular/active USMB members, it seems clear to me that very, very, very few (one, maybe two from what I have observed) understand anything about the role of mens rea, let alone what it takes to cogently show existentiality for any given intent. (Intent can be shown soundly only with a direct attestation of intent, and the odds of ever getting that from a dissembler, malefactor or disingenuous person is "slim to none," and we both know "slim's" ship left port with a gaping hole in the hull.)

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

And the prospect of their doing so was not even close to new by the time the party-line vote happened. One'd have thought that Trump's appointed USIC heads would have, by the time the vote happened, had cleared the memo for immediate release, or that Trump would have pre-written either a blanket declassification order of whatever is in the memo or pre-written a declassification order specifying precisely what information in the memo is/isn't declassified. Trump, of course, didn't do that because he just wants to prolong the acrimony.

Prolonging the acrimony is precisely what's happening and Trump's doing no thing to see it brought to an end.

• Because the memo contains classified information, the people who've read it cannot state what exactly it says, until it's declassified or redacted.
• Because the memo contains classified information, the FBI cannot state what content in it is untrue, until it's declassified or redacted.

Trump has unilateral authority/power to declassify the whole damn thing, thus putting the whole picture on the table for the American people to see, and yet he's not done so. Moreover, just now (it hasn't been five minutes) on AC360, I heard that the memo the WH received isn't even the same memo the House voted to release.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

• Moreover, the House Intel. Cmte. has, to date, refused to share the memo with their Senate counterparts.
• The FBI released a statement about the memo. It essentially says the memo is BS.

Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Off Topic:

FWIW, though I presume you already know so, the "formal" terms for that, depending on how an author/speaker composes or utters their remarks, are:

• Tu quoque fallacious reasoning
• Relative privation

And then there's this and this.

• Last night: Trump says 100% the memo will be released
• Today: Neither Trump nor Sanders will comment on the release.

 

[BlackSand]

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

They voted against releasing the minority memo.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Let's be clear: It simply isn't possible for a memo discussing "Party B" and written by "Party A," who has no involvement in "Party B's" actions and causal motives, cannot possibly show probatively that "Party B" is or was indeed motivated as "Party A" claims. Anyone who fully understands the nature and extent of what it takes to prove intent knows that to be so. Now, as goes the large share of regular/active USMB members, it seems clear to me that very, very, very few (one, maybe two from what I have observed) understand anything about the role of mens rea, let alone what it takes to cogently show existentiality for any given intent. (Intent can be shown soundly only with a direct attestation of intent, and the odds of ever getting that from a dissembler, malefactor or disingenuous person is "slim to none," and we both know "slim's" ship left port with a gaping hole in the hull.)

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

And the prospect of their doing so was not even close to new by the time the party-line vote happened. One'd have thought that Trump's appointed USIC heads would have, by the time the vote happened, had cleared the memo for immediate release, or that Trump would have pre-written either a blanket declassification order of whatever is in the memo or pre-written a declassification order specifying precisely what information in the memo is/isn't declassified. Trump, of course, didn't do that because he just wants to prolong the acrimony.

Prolonging the acrimony is precisely what's happening and Trump's doing no thing to see it brought to an end.

• Because the memo contains classified information, the people who've read it cannot state what exactly it says, until it's declassified or redacted.
• Because the memo contains classified information, the FBI cannot state what content in it is untrue, until it's declassified or redacted.

Trump has unilateral authority/power to declassify the whole damn thing, thus putting the whole picture on the table for the American people to see, and yet he's not done so. Moreover, just now (it hasn't been five minutes) on AC360, I heard that the memo the WH received isn't even the same memo the House voted to release.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

• Moreover, the House Intel. Cmte. has, to date, refused to share the memo with their Senate counterparts.
• The FBI released a statement about the memo. It essentially says the memo is BS.

Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Off Topic:

FWIW, though I presume you already know so, the "formal" terms for that, depending on how an author/speaker composes or utters their remarks, are:

• Tu quoque fallacious reasoning
• Relative privation

You are correct that even in a court of law there are three sides to every story ... The plaintiff, the defendant and the truth.

The Nunes Memo is not a court of law ... Neither is public opinion.
There is probably little to nothing in the Nunes Memo that anyone listening to/reading anything other than the Mainstream Media has not already been exposed to.
Any information reviewed should always be considered with scrutiny, and if someone is interested, there is an abundance of information available.
Assume neither side is correct ... Ask questions/research the things you think are important to the arguments and the people making them.

The House Intelligence Committee cannot share a memo Representative Schiff hasn't given them ...

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

They voted against releasing the minority memo.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Didn't vote to release the democrap memo because its HIGHLY redacted and shows no information. Sorry!

Liar.

Prove it snowflake.

Prove your assertion, loser.

You won't because you can't.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I see the release of this memo as being a step towards transparency. That’s something we should all be celebrating.

Just a very small,highly selective and narrative driven step toward transparency.

The Nunes memo is four pages of carefully chosen excerpts from the more than 120 page affidavit of supporting evidence for the FISA warrant.

Nunes has not even seen the entire affidavit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I see the release of this memo as being a step towards transparency. That’s something we should all be celebrating.

I'm not so sure about that. Is it transparency or - the latest form of political propoganda designed to obstruct an active investigation?

I would find transparency more believable if it weren't happening in the midst of a an investigation that Trump and his supporters have been doing everything possible to descredit and obstruct - from firing people, to character assassinations, to loyalty affirmations. It's truly bizarre. So when a "memo" comes out - written by one person, and supported on strictly partisan lines - it's disturbing. When you realize that these committees used to be above the partisan fray - used to take their loyalty to the Constitution and it's institutions above partisanship - it's disturbing.

I don't think this is "transparency". I think it's political gamesmanship.

I’m good with letting the voters decide. They aren’t as stupid as some democrats think.

These people ( the FBI and DOJ ) work for us. It’s why I’m pissed at them for not conducting an honest investigation into Hillary.

I know you’re smart enough to see how that is a serious problem.

I know you’re smart enough to see how that is a serious problem.

You're not smart enough to know that this memo is nothing more than hype to support a narrative meant to damage the credibility of the investigation. Not unlike the
'unmasking' fiasco Nunes attempted last year. I'm sure you believed that was a 'serious problem' as well.

 

[OldLady]

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

They voted against releasing the minority memo.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

No need to worry. If the memo is factual we all benefit. If the memo is not factual the Repubs look like fools. Coyote, my guess is the memo is factual because the Dims are not saying it is untrue. They are only saying they do not want it released.

So maybe just look at the info and make up your own mind. That is what I intend to so.

What they and are saying is it is not factually inaccurate but it is cherry picked and misleading. So if that is the case we need to see the other memo as well.

You really think the Dims want the truth to come out if the FBI was in the tank for Hillary and out to kill Trump?

No offense, but that is incredibly naive. The truth will come out....all of it. I would say the facts that have come out so far do not look good for the Dims, the FBI, DOJ or Hillary. But I am willing to reserve judgement until I see everything.

"The Truth" is NEVER going to come out because the document with the facts will not be released by the intelligence community.
I don't trust Nunes after his last stunt; it wouldn't surprise me if the WH cooked this one up, as well.
However, if it's legit concerns it should be investigated by a group that can keep classified information SECRET and if there are problems, let us know. This House Intelligence Committee is a joke at this point.

One thing I know: Nunes should be taken off the committee.

 

[debbiedowner]

I see the release of this memo as being a step towards transparency. That’s something we should all be celebrating.

Just a very small,highly selective and narrative driven step toward transparency.

The Nunes memo is four pages of carefully chosen excerpts from the more than 120 page affidavit of supporting evidence for the FISA warrant.

Nunes has not even seen the entire affidavit.

According to accusations by Schiff, Nunes changed it or added to it after it was voted to release it. Nunes says he did some minor changes. Well after they voted to release it should not have been touched. Is Nunes now covering his ass?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I see the release of this memo as being a step towards transparency. That’s something we should all be celebrating.

Just a very small,highly selective and narrative driven step toward transparency.

The Nunes memo is four pages of carefully chosen excerpts from the more than 120 page affidavit of supporting evidence for the FISA warrant.

Nunes has not even seen the entire affidavit.

According to accusations by Schiff, Nunes changed it or added to it after it was voted to release it. Nunes says he did some minor changes. Well after they voted to release it should not have been touched. Is Nunes now covering his ass?

It's just more evidence that Nunes is acting to do nothing more than create a narrative that damages the credibility of the investigation. The question going forward is , did Nunes do this in coordination with the WH like last time? If so, isn't that clearly obstruction?

 

[usmbguest5318]

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

They voted against releasing the minority memo.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Let's be clear: It simply isn't possible for a memo discussing "Party B" and written by "Party A," who has no involvement in "Party B's" actions and causal motives, cannot possibly show probatively that "Party B" is or was indeed motivated as "Party A" claims. Anyone who fully understands the nature and extent of what it takes to prove intent knows that to be so. Now, as goes the large share of regular/active USMB members, it seems clear to me that very, very, very few (one, maybe two from what I have observed) understand anything about the role of mens rea, let alone what it takes to cogently show existentiality for any given intent. (Intent can be shown soundly only with a direct attestation of intent, and the odds of ever getting that from a dissembler, malefactor or disingenuous person is "slim to none," and we both know "slim's" ship left port with a gaping hole in the hull.)

They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

And the prospect of their doing so was not even close to new by the time the party-line vote happened. One'd have thought that Trump's appointed USIC heads would have, by the time the vote happened, had cleared the memo for immediate release, or that Trump would have pre-written either a blanket declassification order of whatever is in the memo or pre-written a declassification order specifying precisely what information in the memo is/isn't declassified. Trump, of course, didn't do that because he just wants to prolong the acrimony.

Prolonging the acrimony is precisely what's happening and Trump's doing no thing to see it brought to an end.

• Because the memo contains classified information, the people who've read it cannot state what exactly it says, until it's declassified or redacted.
• Because the memo contains classified information, the FBI cannot state what content in it is untrue, until it's declassified or redacted.

Trump has unilateral authority/power to declassify the whole damn thing, thus putting the whole picture on the table for the American people to see, and yet he's not done so. Moreover, just now (it hasn't been five minutes) on AC360, I heard that the memo the WH received isn't even the same memo the House voted to release.

They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

• Moreover, the House Intel. Cmte. has, to date, refused to share the memo with their Senate counterparts.
• The FBI released a statement about the memo. It essentially says the memo is BS.

Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

Off Topic:

FWIW, though I presume you already know so, the "formal" terms for that, depending on how an author/speaker composes or utters their remarks, are:

• Tu quoque fallacious reasoning
• Relative privation

You are correct that even in a court of law there are three sides to every story ... The plaintiff, the defendant and the truth.

The Nunes Memo is not a court of law ... Neither is public opinion.
There is probably little to nothing in the Nunes Memo that anyone listening to/reading anything other than the Mainstream Media has not already been exposed to.
Any information reviewed should always be considered with scrutiny, and if someone is interested, there is an abundance of information available.
Assume neither side is correct ... Ask questions/research the things you think are important to the arguments and the people making them.

The House Intelligence Committee cannot share a memo Representative Schiff hasn't given them ...

.

There is probably little to nothing in the Nunes Memo that anyone listening to/reading anything other than the Mainstream Media has not already been exposed to.

Seriously, dude?

(Source)​

 

[debbiedowner]

I see the release of this memo as being a step towards transparency. That’s something we should all be celebrating.

Just a very small,highly selective and narrative driven step toward transparency.

The Nunes memo is four pages of carefully chosen excerpts from the more than 120 page affidavit of supporting evidence for the FISA warrant.

Nunes has not even seen the entire affidavit.

According to accusations by Schiff, Nunes changed it or added to it after it was voted to release it. Nunes says he did some minor changes. Well after they voted to release it should not have been touched. Is Nunes now covering his ass?

It's just more evidence that Nunes is acting to do nothing more than create a narrative that damages the credibility of the investigation. The question going forward is , did Nunes do this in coordination with the WH like last time? If so, isn't that clearly obstruction?

Just finished reading an article on the hill seems the Senate GOP hasn't read it and wants to before it's release. Nunes is such a maverick lol.

 

[BlackSand]

There is probably little to nothing in the Nunes Memo that anyone listening to/reading anything other than the Mainstream Media has not already been exposed to.

Seriously, dude?

(Source)​

Perhaps you need better sources ... I didn't say the memo had been viewed by the general public.
I indicated there is probably little in the memo that hasn't already been discussed in the public.


You're just a pathetic partisan hack ...

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There is probably little to nothing in the Nunes Memo that anyone listening to/reading anything other than the Mainstream Media has not already been exposed to.

Seriously, dude?

(Source)​

Perhaps you need better sources ... I didn't say the memo had been viewed by the general public.
I indicated there is probably little in the memo that hasn't already been discussed in the public.


You're just a pathetic partisan hack ...

.

...As I wrote...Seriously, dude?

 

[BlackSand]

...As I wrote...Seriously, dude?

Yeah ... Well, you better stick with writing that ...
It's about par for your capabilities.


Google ... "FBI and DOJ in Contempt of Congress" ... For a better indication of how seriously the FBI takes it's obligations to cooperate with oversight entities in Congress.


.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There is probably little to nothing in the Nunes Memo that anyone listening to/reading anything other than the Mainstream Media has not already been exposed to.

Seriously, dude?

(Source)​

Perhaps you need better sources ... I didn't say the memo had been viewed by the general public.
I indicated there is probably little in the memo that hasn't already been discussed in the public.


You're just a pathetic partisan hack ...

.

...As I wrote...Seriously, dude?

...As I wrote...Seriously, dude?

Yeah ... Well, you better stick with writing that ... It's about par for capabilities.

Google ... "FBI and DOJ in Contempt of Congress" ... For a better indication of how seriously the FBI takes it's obligations to cooperate with oversight entities in Congress.
.

​

• What is released and what is not,
  
• What is released and what is not,
• Trump's and Conservatives' Lack of Integrity after Jumping to Yet Another Conclusion

 

[BlackSand]

Still nothing ... Stick with GIF's ... At least they are entertaining ...

I can see where you would approve of "limited access" pertaining to subpoenaed documents.
You seem to support the idea the FBI and DOJ are above the law.

.

 

[easyt65]

1. They voted to release “the memo”, written by one political side only.

2. They voted against releasing the minority memo.

3. They refused to allow the FBI/DOJ a hearing to give their information.

There is something way wrong with partisan politics at this level. We should be very disturbed.


Extra points for anyone who can discuss this without a deflection or a whataboutism.

1. The Summary of Evidence is a compilation - a SUMMARY - of evidence found by numerous agencies and sources, to include the US IG.

The classified background, which could expose US collection process and sources, is being withheld, wiping out the Democrats' claim that releasing the SoE will reveal those things.

2. The Minority Memo is an attempt to undermine the SoE by partisan / implicated Democrats / officials who are desperate to undermine what is about to be revealed...because it will be damaging and embarrassing to them.

3. The FBI / DOJ was refused a hearing to give their information because the Summary of Evidence is a compilation of EVIDENCE, and both the FBI and DOJ are currently being investigated. You don't share all of the evidence you have with the targets of your investigation.

This is the same FBI, btw, that recently told Congress they could NOT 'FIND' thousands of 'LOST' texts because of a 'GLITCH' that 'PREVENTED THEM FROM BEING SAVED' to begin with....only to have the US IG roll in and recover them all 2 days later....

(So why would you believe this implicated / lying agency now that the SoE is not completely accurate...?)

This is the same FBI that has been exposed for crimes to include Obstruction and potentially treason'.